Author
Topic: Downloading Music and Rights (Read 45713 times)

Immersion said:This is an philosophical debate, I respect your opinion I hope you respect mine. Even though we live in an capitalistic market economy I think, no music holds an financial value, I do not agree with the thought that you must "pay" to hear music. It might have been so in the past when labels did not gives any other choice, but now and in the future the music will flow free thanks to internet and file sharing, and I see this a good thing to let culture and information flow free.

I have no interest to protect Hollywood or the MTV top 100 mass produced crap industry. I only care about independent music which is not made to gain financial profit but only inner satisfaction and pleasure. We live in an time where almost every person can create music, build their own home studio and record music, you no longer need expensive studios to record music. Anyway, I have no respect for artists who "demand" money in return to listen to their music, it is something very wrong about that.

Maybe you are unaware, but the cd format and physical music media is dying a slow death. In future, we will need no labels or middle hands...who steals the artists income... And remember, the cd sale has always been a very little part of the income for artists, since the labels take everything, unless you have your own label of course... you get the most of the income by doing live shows and sell shirts etc--------------------------

still bullshit. if you want to eat a muffin you need to buy one. if you steal it, its fucking illegal.if you want to listen to music that was released on a cd or vinyl record, you need to buy it.if you download it, its stealing which means its illegal. its that simple. thats no question ofpersonal opinions. its a simple fact that you need to understand. do you go into a cd storeand steal some cds just to check them out at home and see if you are into them? i doubtthat._____________________________

You need to learn the difference between stealing and copying.There is a huge difference to go into a cd store and steal a physical cd, then to go into a cd store and copy the cd out from nowhere.

I am aware that it is illegal upload, actually it is not illegal to download but to upload, at least here in Sweden.However the big mass does not really care, the younger modern generation have grown up with file sharing and free music, and we have no plans to change our behavior.We see it as a human right to download and listen to what music we like. On internet you as artist have no rights you have only an responsibility of what you share, if you do not want people to hear your music...you should simply keep it for yourself, but to blackmail people and force them to PAY to hear the music does not work anymore since we have internet. Music is not about money, if music is about money you are part of the entertainment industry and mass produced crap. I really do not care to protect Hollywood and MTV TOP 100 and other mass produced crap, I only care about real independent music which is made to for stimulate your own being.

Only the old generation that does not use the file sharing technology is against it, most politicians in the parliament is the old generation. There is really only two choices, either we shut down the whole internet and go back to stone age, or we accept and embrace this new times and make our $$$ in other ways. You can say all you want, but file sharing is hear to stay and it is our future.

My vote goes for the Piracy Party hear in sweden, PP has in the last day become the 4th biggest party here in Sweden (no joke) we are damn tired of politicians that want to supervise internet and our digital lifes only because to safe us from "Terrorists" and Usama bin Ladin , we refuse to take this crap. Also the Pirate Bay verdict have made a lot of people pissed off... a real revoltution is taken place the last few days...if it it does continue like this PP will go into the Swedish Parliament in the next election.

I take it that you think its ok to pirate movies and any software as well ? Basically anything that is digital?

Movies absolutely, you need to remember, they get a very little income by dvd sales, most of the income they get from cinema. There will always be a need for people to watch films on cinema for it, since it is the ultimate experience to see the film on a big screen...and there is no indication that people goes less to cinema...

When it comes to software, it is quite different, software can cost a lot of money and man hours to do... however we are going towards a path...where it gets harder and harder to make money on software because of bigger completion and piracy...... I think Open source projects will with time take over. As long as there is an need for something, things will be done in some way or another. I think Open Source and free software is the future and I think that is an very positive an very promising development which I think in the end will gain us all.

Immersion, has it occurred to you that if nobody pays for music any longer, many of the music-makers whose work you've enjoyed may stop releasing music to the public? I suppose you'd say any music-maker who wants to receive any money in return for their work is "greedy" and "corporate," right?

Why is it that you think someone who makes muffins deserves to be paid for the muffins, but someone who makes music has no right to make a deal with people who want to buy CDs from them for a fair price?

Music is a commodity ... and is no different in that regard from other commodities.Some people happen to like music, other people like betting on horses or going hiking in the country.

Music isn't a special class of thing that needs to be free. You enjoy it. You also enjoy fruit juice, but juice is also a product of labour, and as such is not free. Thinking that you can take the product of people's time and labour and believe they should be yours for free is stupidly pretentious ... not to mention cheap.

Immersion, has it occurred to you that if nobody pays for music any longer, many of the music-makers whose work you've enjoyed may stop releasing music to the public? I suppose you'd say any music-maker who wants to receive any money in return for their work is "greedy" and "corporate," right?

Why is it that you think someone who makes muffins deserves to be paid for the muffins, but someone who makes music has no right to make a deal with people who want to buy CDs from them for a fair price?

We do not share reality, for me it is the opposite thanks to internet it is easier then ever to release albums. If you only care about the money I think you got the wrong attitude and maybe it is best you keep the music for yourself ?But as I said, I do not agree with your statement, that artists release less music because of internet. Look at Robert Rich for example he did just release an 8CD live archive.

Muffins is an physical object which cost actually money to create, you need the ingredients and work time to create a muffin, for such service you could expect money. You can copy an muffin out of nothing.... Music however you can copy... Music however is only an experience, music in itself is made primarily because your own inner satisfaction and the driving force if you create independent music is not the money flow. If you want to earn money I suggest you create an company or something like that, cause music will not give you the $$$ you want, maybe you can get some pocket money at best ? But the dream to make a living on the music year 2009 really demands hard work from yourself..and a lot of live shows. Or you do as us deadly people get a job... or buy stocks ? or play poker or what ever you want ?

BTW it is needed to be said, I am trying to debate with two cd label owners right here, I do fully understand your intention and perspective.You are talking in your own interests, which I can understand...

Immersion, it's not up to you to decide whether or not musicians should be allowed to charge for their music. Some musicians are happy to give it away for free, and others want to charge something for it. Some listeners are happy getting a bunch of mp3 files via bittorrent, while many others want to purchase a CD with printed artwork.

Your choice of the Robert Rich live archive perfectly illustrates my point, not yours. You'll notice Robert did not release the live recordings on CD, though he has released live recordings on CD in the past. The reason his new live archive was released as download-only, rather than on CD, is because the music market has changed so much that Robert feels pressing CDs of these live recordings would not be worth the cost, given how many copies might sell. Ten years ago, this would be an easy decision to make -- we sold plenty of copies of Humidity, for example, a collection of live Robert Rich recordings. Now, Robert believed and I agreed with him, the live archive recordings would be hard to sell in sufficient numbers to justify putting them on CDs. And this is one of the most popular and most established artists in our genre! The effect of file sharing, and the "music must be free" mentality, has made it harder for artists to sell enough CDs to pay for the cost of pressing the discs, let alone any big profit. So the Robert Rich live archive recordings are download-only, even though Robert would like to have them on CD and there are many listeners (though probably not enough) who would like to have them on CD too.

You keep saying people should "get a job" and that's ignorant of you, because most of us DO have jobs -- label owners and ambient musicians alike -- because there is not much money to be made from selling our music. I understand that in your idealized utopian vision, all artists would gladly work hard to buy equipment and record music to be released for free, but the reality, not the dream, is that many artists will not participate in the vision you propose. If artists must bear the cost of buying all their own equipment and instruments without any possibility of getting something in return, some of them won't bother, and all of us who would have been willing to buy their CD will have lost out on that artist's work.

The thing is, it's not up to YOU to decide whether or not an artist or label can charge for their work. The work belongs to them, not you, and they get to decide. If you assert that you can overrule their decision, that's just because you want something for free and you're inventing a rationalization after the fact to justify your own selfishness.

"Muffins is an physical object which cost actually money to create, you need the ingredients and work time to create a muffin, for such service you could expect money..."

Music is also a physical object, when produced. You need ingredients (synths, effects, and most importantly SKILL and TIME), and you certainly need WORK. And for such services you might expect money (as in other lines of work).

The only difference (from muffin to music) is that music is also amenable to digital reproduction.

And yes, I run a label. A very small label (in Canada). But it is a label created primarily to release my own work and work of a very few artists whose work I enjoy and seriously respect. I put a LOT of time and WORK into these releases. Its not some grandiose capitalist western enterprise. It is just a few individuals who put a lot of time into creating works they enjoy and that other people might also enjoy. But it certainly takes a lot of time and work. I only have this time available because my wife supports me with her job.

I don't think music is more important than food ... yet we rightly pay for food.

Thinking that because something CAN be shared is reason for it being justifiably shared is rubbish. Not even radical socialism would be so stupid as to say that.

Immersion, it's not up to you to decide whether or not musicians should be allowed to charge for their music. Some musicians are happy to give it away for free, and others want to charge something for it. Some listeners are happy getting a bunch of mp3 files via bittorrent, while many others want to purchase a CD with printed artwork.

Your choice of the Robert Rich live archive perfectly illustrates my point, not yours. You'll notice Robert did not release the live recordings on CD, though he has released live recordings on CD in the past. The reason his new live archive was released as download-only, rather than on CD, is because the music market has changed so much that Robert feels pressing CDs of these live recordings would not be worth the cost, given how many copies might sell. Ten years ago, this would be an easy decision to make -- we sold plenty of copies of Humidity, for example, a collection of live Robert Rich recordings. Now, Robert believed and I agreed with him, the live archive recordings would be hard to sell in sufficient numbers to justify putting them on CDs. And this is one of the most popular and most established artists in our genre! The effect of file sharing, and the "music must be free" mentality, has made it harder for artists to sell enough CDs to pay for the cost of pressing the discs, let alone any big profit. So the Robert Rich live archive recordings are download-only, even though Robert would like to have them on CD and there are many listeners (though probably not enough) who would like to have them on CD too.

You keep saying people should "get a job" and that's ignorant of you, because most of us DO have jobs -- label owners and ambient musicians alike -- because there is not much money to be made from selling our music. I understand that in your idealized utopian vision, all artists would gladly work hard to buy equipment and record music to be released for free, but the reality, not the dream, is that many artists will not participate in the vision you propose. If artists must bear the cost of buying all their own equipment and instruments without any possibility of getting something in return, some of them won't bother, and all of us who would have been willing to buy their CD will have lost out on that artist's work.

The thing is, it's not up to YOU to decide whether or not an artist or label can charge for their work. The work belongs to them, not you, and they get to decide. If you assert that you can overrule their decision, that's just because you want something for free and you're inventing a rationalization after the fact to justify your own selfishness.

It is not totally true, according to Robert Rich himself,...

So why did I wait so long to release some of this music? Well, it’s because of the realities of digital download. Back when a “release” meant a CD, and several thousand dollars invested in manufacturing, marketing, packaging and such, I wanted to keep my releases limited to the latest work. But in retrospect, some of these more improvisational moments of the past have value on their own, as action instead of object, like dance relates to sculpture. The download format also allows for longer durations. Manufactured CDs shouldn’t exceed 74 minutes. Some of these sets were 80-90 minutes long. Even now I faced a challenge to edit them down to an 80 minute CDR-capable format, so people could back-up their lossless downloads.

The reality is the artist is no longer in power to decide to take charge for music or not since they do no longer have monopoly in distribution, consumers now have a choice, either to download it for free or buy the cd and maybe wait 1-2 weeks before you receive the cd, the choice is up to you.

Too survive on music is only a dream for most artists, you can't be a "rockstar" anymore..that time is over... only a very few of all artists have the opportunity to survive on their music, and those who do usually work hard...long tours etc... as I said, cd sales only generates pocket money for the independent artists, you can't surrive on that shit, unless you do live shows, and sell shirts etc. And to produce and record music in your home studio is now something everyone can do. Personally I have plants to Norway in a few months to work like a dog for 10 weeks if I get the job..that is...when I come home I will be able to buy everything I want, finally the Eventide Processor a pair of studio monitors. Then I have all I need to create music and I am all happy, I have however no plans to survive on my "music" or get money for it... I create music for my own personal pleasure.

Unfortunately, the actions of the "music industry" have sabotaged the artists' interests, IMHO. They have lectured me about morality while installing viruses on their customers' computers. They pick and choose people of limited means to sue for huge sums of money for illegally copying music files, while simultaneously providing advance copies of music for bloggers to disseminate in order to build "buzz." Payola (bribery, financed by their paying customers) is still a problem in the broadcasting industry. They have deliberately tried to pervert existing copyright laws into something they are not, and were never intended to be. I don't believe that home taping ever seriously threatened the record business, in spite of the industry's claims and lawsuits. I do believe that the home CD recording market was sabotaged by the industry and their needless distinction between "Music" and "Data" CD-Rs. I believe I have the right to record music for which broadcast fees have been paid. Etc., etc.

They also manipulate the market. For example, you can legally pay for and download the album Evergreen Vol. 2, by the Stone Poneys -- If you live in Europe. If you live in America, even if you want to pay for it they won't sell it to you. (You can now buy an Australian import CD, but shouldn't I have the legal choice?) Etc., etc.

It's easy to feel "ripped off" by the music industry, and that turnabout is fair game.

But that isn't fair to the artists.

All people deserve to be compensated fairly for their work. Very talented people should be able to earn enough from their music to quit their day jobs -- this benefits us because it frees them up to create more music.

The "Music Industry" is changing. The ease of distribution over the internet -- legitimate as well as illegitimate -- means that we don't need the kind of music distribution infrastructure that grew up over the last century. This was the sector of the business that was pretty much viewed as a license to print money -- no one involved wants to see it go. It also means that a lot of lawyers, sales reps, managers, etc., will likely lose their jobs. They are trying any tactic they can find to prolong the "good old days." As someone who was an employee of the old "Bell System," and who went through the divestitures of the 80s and 90s, I sympathize with them. That was a bad time to work at AT&T or an operating company -- but it had to happen. Life as I knew it back then was very good, and the world is a better place for it, but those days are gone.

Today, even though the market is dwindling, I still prefer real CDs. I believe that they provide the most permanent form of music storage available. Besides, even if I download music I immediately burn it to a CD-R for archival purposes -- I've had a hard disk fail, and last year suffered a dramatic virus attack. That means I still need some kind of music company (in addition to the artists) -- but I don't need a behemoth like Sony-BMG. I think fewer and fewer people do.

Most of the CDs I've bought in the past year have come from Hypnos, Spotted Peccary, and other small outfits. I'll still be buying CDs as long as I can.

I would also like to buy (legally buy) David Wright's latest, Dreams and Distant Moonlight, on CD. I can't find anyplace in the US that has it, and overseas S&H is expensive, so I might wind up (legally paying for and) downloading it from someplace like Musiczeit. Either way, I want artists to keep making music and I'm willing to pay a reasonable amount in a fair transaction for the privilege.

EDIT: And while I was typing that I was notified of seven new replies. It's a "hot button!"

"Muffins is an physical object which cost actually money to create, you need the ingredients and work time to create a muffin, for such service you could expect money..."

Music is also a physical object, when produced. You need ingredients (synths, effects, and most importantly SKILL and TIME), and you certainly need WORK. And for such services you might expect money (as in other lines of work).

The only difference (from muffin to music) is that music is also amenable to digital reproduction.

And yes, I run a label. A very small label (in Canada). But it is a label created primarily to release my own work and work of a very few artists whose work I enjoy and seriously respect. I put a LOT of time and WORK into these releases. Its not some grandiose capitalist western enterprise. It is just a few individuals who put a lot of time into creating works they enjoy and that other people might also enjoy. But it certainly takes a lot of time and work. I only have this time available because my wife supports me with her job.

I don't think music is more important than food ... yet we rightly pay for food.

Thinking that because something CAN be shared is reason for it being justifiably shared is rubgbish. Not even radical socialism would be so stuipid as to say that.

Sure the production is a physical process, however what you buy is the experience...But With your logic , if I buy an Steve Roach album I should also pay for his studio equipment and his time ?If I buy an album I would in that case need to know how many hours he have spent to create the "product" and what studio equipment (ingredients) he have usedto create the final form otherwise how should I determine it's financial value And how much is his time really worth ?

No really, I do not think you can expect anything, you do music for fun, and nothing else, at least the artists I listen to. The driving force should come from your artistic will and desire to create, not the because of the opportunity to earn some $$$. Again I have very little respect and sympathy for artist who openly "demand" money, that is the wrong attitude to have, I might send an donation or something to show my appreciation to an artist, but not if he/she has that greedy attitude and demand my money to listen to his/hers music.

"The driving force should come from your artistic will and desire to create, not the because of the opportunity to earn some $$$."

The driving force of the people I release, and my own work, is the artistic will and desire to create, not financial opportunity. But that does not exclude the WORK being worth something. Do you expect to get sculptures or paintings for free because they are the product of "the desire to create". That is a ridiculous argument.

I should mention that we are not dealing here with some monolith called "the music industry" ... we are only dealing with a few ordinary ambient label guys (rather like yourselves) who happen to have no connection at all to this "music industry" and who put a lot of time and energy into releasing what they see as worthwhile products for people to listen to.

Putting all labels into this "music industry" bucket is just a way of justifying abuse.Rather like saying ALL movies you download are in the "hollywood industry" even if they were actually from a small startup company in Stockholm.

"The driving force should come from your artistic will and desire to create, not the because of the opportunity to earn some $$$."

The driving force of the people I release, and my own work, is the artistic will and desire to create, not financial opportunity. But that does not exclude the WORK being worth something. Do you expect to get sculptures or paintings for free because they are the product of "the desire to create". That is a ridiculous argument.

How much your work is worth is up to the consumer to decide, so it is very relative, . It is not up to an label to decide a "price". And if I should not know how much an album is worth I need to listen to the album before I buy, labels usually only let you hear a few "samples" usually with the best parts of the album", I think it is irritating that you can't hear the full album before you buy the album, I should at least be able to stream the album one time before I buy it...but no no... why would the labels do that ?

Also We need to remember I am not saying that your label does, but in general, labels takes most of the money. Besides a few labels, I have no desire to fill their pockets...

Sculptures and paintings is an physical objects, again, you can't copy an physical object out of nothing.

Anthony's right. It's a little shocking to see what we do described as "greedy" or "commercial" or "arrogant." When Hypnos releases a CD, I'm not trying to sell a million copies to make myself rich. I'm trying to sell enough copies to pay to get the next CD made. When an artist or label can't sell 100-200 copies of a CD release, that artist or label will probably stop making CDs soon -- something that has happened many times with some really interesting labels, and it's only been worse since filesharing has made it so easy for people to grab the music without supporting the scene. Is the music scene really better off if all the little labels vanish? Sure, there would still be some DIY "come and get my free download" musicians around, but if that was ALL there was, is that better somehow?

Bill Binkelman

So, I take it none of you have anything better to do on a Sunday afternoon than indulge in a circular, unending debate which cannot possibly be "won" by either side because the parties are diametrically opposed?

(just kiddin'....well, sort of, kinda serious, too....carry on...I'm going back to watch the rest of Scanners, which I DVR'd from the IFC channel...

...but really, I mean, what's the point? you're not going to change his mind and, Mike,I think you made your (very good) point by deleting the website in his initial post and also stating why you did it...as for Immersion's "human right" statement ( ), I think there are enough REAL human right violations going on these days that this one is fairly insignificant.

How much your work is worth is up to the consumer to decide, so it is very relative, . It is not up to an label to decide a "price".

This is incredibly naive. The music is made by the artist, but the consumer is the only one who has control of it?

I agree that the consumer has the right to decide to buy or not buy music at a given price. The idea that the person who made the music has no say in the matter is ridiculous. It's just something you tell yourself so you'll feel better ignoring the rights of creative people whom you claim to respect.

Do you seriously believe that listeners will voluntarily send "donations" for music they've obtained illicitly? This happens very, very rarely. I know that Hypnos has never once received one of these "I downloaded your album via bittorrent and enjoyed it so much I wanted to send along the $6 I feel the recording is worth" donations.

I do believe that sometimes, a person downloads an album and really likes it enough to purchase the CD legitimately. But far, far more often, human nature takes over and they think, "well, I already have the recording, so why should I go pay for it?"